Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Historically, it's a fact that technological advancement has occured in rapid surges lasting a few centuries (most of them were about 300 years long, in fact), separated by long periods of slow change.

When was this discovered? Can you cite some references? What sort of methodologies were used to track the rate of technological development?

Can the "End of the Human Race" be very far away now?

Again, It's All Over Now
This time we really mean it! :wink:

Sunday, July 6, 2003; Page B06
Washington Post Editorial

• "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." -- Paul R. Ehrlich, 'The Population Bomb' published in 1968

• "If current trends persist, many nations are a few decades away from an untenable paradigm of fewer and fewer working-age people supporting the rapidly growing elderly population." -- The Washington Post, Sunday, July 6, 2003

"HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS" might well have been the title of last month's National Vital Statistics report, which shows that the U.S. birthrate has hit a record low. The U.S. population isn't shrinking -- yet. But if current trends continue, the country will grow increasingly reliant on immigration to bolster the ranks of its working-age population.

Thankfully, the shrunken birthrate is largely a result of falling numbers of teen pregnancies, which have steadily declined since the 1990s, thanks in part to public awareness campaigns. Also, the graying of the population has contributed to the lower birthrate, as more people live longer past the traditional years of fertility. Nevertheless, a larger trend is unmistakable: Birthrates for women in their peak reproductive years are down. Women are waiting longer before having children and are having fewer when they finally do.

As a result, the U.S. birthrate has been dropping and is now just below replacement level. That it remains among the highest in the developed world is not much consolation: Most of the rich nations of Europe, as well as Japan, are facing a demographic crisis because of low birthrates. A village in Spain is now giving a pig to each set of new parents as an inducement, and throughout Europe other nations are resorting to such wacky and desperate measures to encourage childbirth. If current trends persist, many nations are a few decades away from an untenable paradigm of fewer and fewer working-age people supporting the rapidly growing elderly population.

Fortunately, the United States is still far removed from a problem of that scale. But countries with shrinking populations may stagnate economically, intellectually and militarily. If future generations are to carry on the American vibrancy and dynamism, the country must be prepared to embrace more babies, and more adults from around the world.








Posted for discussion purposes only.

Originally Posted by ....

Can the "End of the Human Race" be very far away now?

Again, It's All Over Now
This time we really mean it! :wink:

Sunday, July 6, 2003; Page B06
Washington Post Editorial

• "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." -- Paul R. Ehrlich, 'The Population Bomb' published in 1968

Ehrlich's numbers never did really add up. The population bomb was one of those fears amplified far beyond the warrant of evidence.

Even so, the rate at which it's fizzled is remarkable.

• "If current trends persist, many nations are a few decades away from an untenable paradigm of fewer and fewer working-age people supporting the rapidly growing elderly population." -- The Washington Post, Sunday, July 6, 2003

"HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS" might well have been the title of last month's National Vital Statistics report, which shows that the U.S. birthrate has hit a record low. The U.S. population isn't shrinking -- yet. But if current trends continue, the country will grow increasingly reliant on immigration to bolster the ranks of its working-age population.

Thankfully, the shrunken birthrate is largely a result of falling numbers of teen pregnancies, which have steadily declined since the 1990s, thanks in part to public awareness campaigns. Also, the graying of the population has contributed to the lower birthrate, as more people live longer past the traditional years of fertility. Nevertheless, a larger trend is unmistakable: Birthrates for women in their peak reproductive years are down. Women are waiting longer before having children and are having fewer when they finally do.

As a result, the U.S. birthrate has been dropping and is now just below replacement level. That it remains among the highest in the developed world is not much consolation: Most of the rich nations of Europe, as well as Japan, are facing a demographic crisis because of low birthrates. A village in Spain is now giving a pig to each set of new parents as an inducement, and throughout Europe other nations are resorting to such wacky and desperate measures to encourage childbirth. If current trends persist, many nations are a few decades away from an untenable paradigm of fewer and fewer working-age people supporting the rapidly growing elderly population.

Europe may turn out to have an even bigger problem with this than America.

Fortunately, the United States is still far removed from a problem of that scale. But countries with shrinking populations may stagnate economically, intellectually and militarily. If future generations are to carry on the American vibrancy and dynamism, the country must be prepared to embrace more babies, and more adults from around the world.

Posted for discussion purposes only.

That won't help unless we improve our ability to assimilate immigrants, to transform them from 'them' into 'us'. If this is true, America's survival will require that we deemphasize diversity and reemphasize the 'melting pot'.

Interesting, Augustus Caesar had a problem with a population shortage, too.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

That won't help unless we improve our ability to assimilate immigrants, to transform them from 'them' into 'us'. If this is true, America's survival will require that we deemphasize diversity and reemphasize the 'melting pot'.

I can already hear the hue and cry from liberals who wish no such thing.

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

That won't help unless we improve our ability to assimilate immigrants, to transform them from 'them' into 'us'. If this is true, America's survival will require that we deemphasize diversity and reemphasize the 'melting pot'.

I can already hear the hue and cry from liberals who wish no such thing.

Funny, I always thought it was the conservatives who wanted to keep everyone separate and at each other's throats. Could it be that the people you refer to are those who have been so liberal for so long that they've become, in fact, conservative-- and that what they are attempting to "conserve" is their own extreme brand of liberalism?

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

That won't help unless we improve our ability to assimilate immigrants, to transform them from 'them' into 'us'. If this is true, America's survival will require that we deemphasize diversity and reemphasize the 'melting pot'.

I can already hear the hue and cry from liberals who wish no such thing.

Funny, I always thought it was the conservatives who wanted to keep everyone separate and at each other's throats. Could it be that the people you refer to are those who have been so liberal for so long that they've become, in fact, conservative-- and that what they are attempting to "conserve" is their own extreme brand of liberalism?

BINGO!!!

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

That won't help unless we improve our ability to assimilate immigrants, to transform them from 'them' into 'us'. If this is true, America's survival will require that we deemphasize diversity and reemphasize the 'melting pot'.

I can already hear the hue and cry from liberals who wish no such thing.

Funny, I always thought it was the conservatives who wanted to keep everyone separate and at each other's throats.

?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The conservatives I know tend to be either 'close the borders' types, or 'melting pot' types. The whole point is to prevent the 'at each other's throat' scenario from arising.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

No it doesn't. At any given time, you have only a finite number of
choices in any decision you have to make.

Even in the choice of moving my arm between 1 and 2 degrees, there are an infinite number of degrees I could choose. I could choose 1.1 degrees, 1.11 degrees, 1.111 degrees, and it keeps going on and on.

Just because you SAY that a computer doesn't think doesn't make it
so.

Once a computer invents something without human input I'll concur.

That's all that human beings do. The human brains works by looking
for patterns.

Not in the realm of genious.

Computers do original things all the time, even in something as
"simple" as chess. Once computers are powerful enough so that they
can select many, many more decision choices than a human could ever
handle, then computers will be far more original than humans, and
humans will be lost.

There is nothing creative about evaluating the best move from following rules preprogrammed into your memory. Being creative would involve going against rules.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

That won't help unless we improve our ability to assimilate immigrants, to transform them from 'them' into 'us'. If this is true, America's survival will require that we deemphasize diversity and reemphasize the 'melting pot'.

I can already hear the hue and cry from liberals who wish no such thing.

Funny, I always thought it was the conservatives who wanted to keep everyone separate and at each other's throats.

?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The conservatives I know tend to be either 'close the borders' types, or 'melting pot' types. The whole point is to prevent the 'at each other's throat' scenario from arising.

HC, again, you are absolutely correct. Immigration is an issue where Left and Right pidgeonholes don't apply. Some conservatives want to shut the doors; others want the melting pot (and of course, the business community appreciates a source of relatively cheap labor). Some liberals embrace the diversity that comes from immigrants (I for one appreciate the vast improvement in American cuisine that came about from the immigration of Thais, Ethiopians, Afghans, Peruvians, etc.... to our shores) whereas others fret about lower wages for American workers and environmental problems arising from a larger US population.

FWIW, I personnally straddle the diversity and melting pot stances -- I like to see immigrants become American and appreciate the changes in what America means that they bring. (Just as the Italians made pizza all-American 100 years ago).

Originally Posted by Jenny Genser

Immigration is an issue where Left and Right pidgeonholes don't apply. Some conservatives want to shut the doors; others want the melting pot (and of course, the business community appreciates a source of relatively cheap labor). Some liberals embrace the diversity that comes from immigrants (I for one appreciate the vast improvement in American cuisine that came about from the immigration of Thais, Ethiopians, Afghans, Peruvians, etc.... to our shores) whereas others fret about lower wages for American workers and environmental problems arising from a larger US population.

Immigration is an issue where Left and Right pidgeonholes apply. Some conservatives want to shut the doors; others want the melting pot (I for one appreciate the how legal immigrants value hard work, can do, freedom and liberty much more than American natives do). Some liberals embrace the diversity that comes from immigrants (and of course, the liberal politicians appreciate a source of relatively cheap votes), whereas others fret about lower wages for American workers and environmental problems arising from a larger US population.

Originally Posted by ....

Originally Posted by Jenny Genser

Immigration is an issue where Left and Right pidgeonholes don't apply. Some conservatives want to shut the doors; others want the melting pot (and of course, the business community appreciates a source of relatively cheap labor). Some liberals embrace the diversity that comes from immigrants (I for one appreciate the vast improvement in American cuisine that came about from the immigration of Thais, Ethiopians, Afghans, Peruvians, etc.... to our shores) whereas others fret about lower wages for American workers and environmental problems arising from a larger US population.

Immigration is an issue where Left and Right pidgeonholes apply. Some conservatives want to shut the doors; others want the melting pot (I for one appreciate the how legal immigrants value hard work, can do, freedom and liberty much more than American natives do). Some liberals embrace the diversity that comes from immigrants (and of course, the liberal politicians appreciate a source of relatively cheap votes), whereas others fret about lower wages for American workers and environmental problems arising from a larger US population.

OK guys, here's how I weigh in: I don't want to shut the doors, but i think we should ratchet immigration down a notch or two. We can't afford to take on the entire planet's tired and poor yearning to breathe free, and on account of national security I don't think we need to let in any more Middle Easterners at all. I think the diversity brought by immigrants is great, to the extent that it has recast the public debate over ethnicity as more complex than a strictly black/white issue. On the other hand, it is very bad when we encourage immigrants to remain separate and not intermingle with (and eventually become) English-speaking Americans. Ethnic cuisine is quite good, however I am deeply offended when I walk down a street in my own country and see storefront signs written entirely in Korean or Vietnamese (the implication being that Americans aren't welcome inside). I am less worried about immigrants coming here and taking the grimiest of American jobs than I am about American corporations sending our well-paying skilled manufacturing jobs overseas to them.

Originally Posted by Mike

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

No it doesn't. At any given time, you have only a finite number of
choices in any decision you have to make.

Even in the choice of moving my arm between 1 and 2 degrees, there are an infinite number of degrees I could choose. I could choose 1.1 degrees, 1.11 degrees, 1.111 degrees, and it keeps going on and on.

But according to quantum mechanics, space is actually discrete (so there are merely a very large finite number of possibilities)

Just because you SAY that a computer doesn't think doesn't make it
so.

Once a computer invents something without human input I'll concur.

That's all that human beings do. The human brains works by looking
for patterns.

Not in the realm of genious.

Computers do original things all the time, even in something as
"simple" as chess. Once computers are powerful enough so that they
can select many, many more decision choices than a human could ever
handle, then computers will be far more original than humans, and
humans will be lost.

There is nothing creative about evaluating the best move from following rules preprogrammed into your memory. Being creative would involve going against rules.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The whole point is to prevent the 'at each other's throat' scenario from arising.

For some, the 'at each other's throats' scenario is a very desirable one to set up and maintain, either as what they see as a well-deserved collective punishment, or as the essence of a 'divide and rule' elitist strategy.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

OK guys, here's how I weigh in: I don't want to shut the doors, but I think we should ratchet immigration down a notch or two. We can't afford to take on the entire planet's tired and poor yearning to breathe free, and on account of national security I don't think we need to let in any more Middle Easterners at all. I think the diversity brought by immigrants is great, to the extent that it has recast the public debate over ethnicity as more complex than a strictly black/white issue. On the other hand, it is very bad when we encourage immigrants to remain separate and not intermingle with (and eventually become) English-speaking Americans. Ethnic cuisine is quite good, however I am deeply offended when I walk down a street in my own country and see storefront signs written entirely in Korean or Vietnamese (the implication being that Americans aren't welcome inside). I am less worried about immigrants coming here and taking the grimiest of American jobs than I am about American corporations sending our well-paying skilled manufacturing jobs overseas to them.

Kevin Parker 59, your position is very close to where I am on the subject of immigration. In fact, I didn't see a thing in the above that I disagree with.

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The whole point is to prevent the 'at each other's throat' scenario from arising.

For some, the 'at each other's throats' scenario is a very desirable one to set up and maintain, either as what they see as a well-deserved collective punishment, or as the essence of a 'divide and rule' elitist strategy.

Mostly the latter. My suspicion is that most of the people pushing anti-American cultural diversity don't so much crave conflict as they don't take the possibility seriously, compared to the prospect to the short-term political benefits.

Of course, there are also starry-eyed idealists among them who see diversity as a good in itself, too.

OK guys, here's how I weigh in: I don't want to shut the doors, but i think we should ratchet immigration down a notch or two. We can't afford to take on the entire planet's tired and poor yearning to breathe free, and on account of national security I don't think we need to let in any more Middle Easterners at all.

Entire planet? Get real. And we can't afford not to allow the "tired and poor yearning to breathe free" to immigrate. Who the hell else teaches us how important "yearning to breathe free" really is? Liberals?

The rest of your stupid, idiotic diatribe is racist and phobic. Get a life, ya sick freak!

Originally Posted by ....

OK guys, here's how I weigh in: I don't want to shut the doors, but i think we should ratchet immigration down a notch or two. We can't afford to take on the entire planet's tired and poor yearning to breathe free, and on account of national security I don't think we need to let in any more Middle Easterners at all.

Entire planet? Get real. And we can't afford not to allow the "tired and poor yearning to breathe free" to immigrate. Who the hell else teaches us how important "yearning to breathe free" really is? Liberals?

The rest of your stupid, idiotic diatribe is racist and phobic. Get a life, ya sick freak!

Driver's license and registration, please. Step out of the car, Mr. Dots.

Dear Mike,

Originally Posted by Mike

> Even in the choice of moving my arm between 1 and 2 degrees, there
> are an infinite number of degrees I could choose. I could choose
> 1.1 degrees, 1.11 degrees, 1.111 degrees, and it keeps going on
> and on. ... There is nothing creative about evaluating the best
> move from following rules preprogrammed into your memory. Being
> creative would involve going against rules.

But that's not how you think. You don't say to yourself, "I think
I'll move my hand 2.48 inches ... no, make that 2.49 inches." What
you actually think is, "I think I'll pick up my fork," and your arm
moves whatever distance is necessary to do that.

In fact, you NEVER make any decision where you have an infinite
number of choices. You make a finite number of decisions each day --
"I think I'll have corn flakes instead of eggs" or "I think I'll wear
my brown socks instead of my black socks" -- with a finite number of
choices for each decision. Even when you "go against the rules," you
still are selecting from a finite set of choices.

So, in fact, going through the day actually IS very much like a game
of chess, if you consider each decision you make to be a "move" in
the "game of life."

Doing something "creative" is no different. For example, when Thomas
Edison invented the incandescent bulb, he didn't have some magic
epiphany. He and a lot of other people knew what had to be done.
There a number of different choices of materials to use for the
filament, for the enclosure, for the gas to be used in the enclosure,
and so forth. There were probably several thousand different
combinations of choices. Edison was the first to put together the
right combination of choices and patent it. If he had taken much
longer, then Joseph Swan would have beaten him to it.

So everything is like that. There's no magic, no mystery to
creativity. It's just trying a lot of different things.

Computers are not yet powerful enough to be able to invent things
(except in some trivial cases), but by 2030 they'll be 100,000 times
as powerful as they are today, and they'll be able to make decisions,
including "creative" decisions, more quickly than humans will.

John

Dear Mike,

Originally Posted by Mike

> Even in the choice of moving my arm between 1 and 2 degrees, there
> are an infinite number of degrees I could choose. I could choose
> 1.1 degrees, 1.11 degrees, 1.111 degrees, and it keeps going on
> and on. ... There is nothing creative about evaluating the best
> move from following rules preprogrammed into your memory. Being
> creative would involve going against rules.

But that's not how you think. You don't say to yourself, "I think
I'll move my hand 2.48 inches ... no, make that 2.49 inches." What
you actually think is, "I think I'll pick up my fork," and your arm
moves whatever distance is necessary to do that.

In fact, you NEVER make any decision where you have an infinite
number of choices. You make a finite number of decisions each day --
"I think I'll have corn flakes instead of eggs" or "I think I'll wear
my brown socks instead of my black socks" -- with a finite number of
choices for each decision. Even when you "go against the rules," you
still are selecting from a finite set of choices.

So, in fact, going through the day actually IS very much like a game
of chess, if you consider each decision you make to be a "move" in
the "game of life."

Doing something "creative" is no different. For example, when Thomas
Edison invented the incandescent bulb, he didn't have some magic
epiphany. He and a lot of other people knew what had to be done.
There a number of different choices of materials to use for the
filament, for the enclosure, for the gas to be used in the enclosure,
and so forth. There were probably several thousand different
combinations of choices. Edison was the first to put together the
right combination of choices and patent it. If he had taken much
longer, then Joseph Swan would have beaten him to it.

So everything is like that. There's no magic, no mystery to
creativity. It's just trying a lot of different things.

Computers are not yet powerful enough to be able to invent things
(except in some trivial cases), but by 2030 they'll be 100,000 times
as powerful as they are today, and they'll be able to make decisions,
including "creative" decisions, more quickly than humans will.

John

Dear Mike,

Originally Posted by Mike

> Even in the choice of moving my arm between 1 and 2 degrees, there
> are an infinite number of degrees I could choose. I could choose
> 1.1 degrees, 1.11 degrees, 1.111 degrees, and it keeps going on
> and on. ... There is nothing creative about evaluating the best
> move from following rules preprogrammed into your memory. Being
> creative would involve going against rules.

But that's not how you think. You don't say to yourself, "I think
I'll move my hand 2.48 inches ... no, make that 2.49 inches." What
you actually think is, "I think I'll pick up my fork," and your arm
moves whatever distance is necessary to do that.

In fact, you NEVER make any decision where you have an infinite
number of choices. You make a finite number of decisions each day --
"I think I'll have corn flakes instead of eggs" or "I think I'll wear
my brown socks instead of my black socks" -- with a finite number of
choices for each decision. Even when you "go against the rules," you
still are selecting from a finite set of choices.

So, in fact, going through the day actually IS very much like a game
of chess, if you consider each decision you make to be a "move" in
the "game of life."

Doing something "creative" is no different. For example, when Thomas
Edison invented the incandescent bulb, he didn't have some magic
epiphany. He and a lot of other people knew what had to be done.
There a number of different choices of materials to use for the
filament, for the enclosure, for the gas to be used in the enclosure,
and so forth. There were probably several thousand different
combinations of choices. Edison was the first to put together the
right combination of choices and patent it. If he had taken much
longer, then Joseph Swan would have beaten him to it.

So everything is like that. There's no magic, no mystery to
creativity. It's just trying a lot of different things.

Computers are not yet powerful enough to be able to invent things
(except in some trivial cases), but by 2030 they'll be 100,000 times
as powerful as they are today, and they'll be able to make decisions,
including "creative" decisions, more quickly than humans will.

John

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

But that's not how you think. You don't say to yourself, "I think I'll move my hand 2.48 inches ... no, make that 2.49 inches." What you actually think is, "I think I'll pick up my fork," and your arm moves whatever distance is necessary to do that.

Except that exactly how you pick up your fork has innumerable variations: right or left hand? Thumb and forefinger or ring and middle finger? Pinky up or pinky down? Handle end or prong end? Salad fork or ass-scratching fork? and so forth. What makes humankind particularly unpredictable, though, is that rare individual who says, in response to the query of exactly how the fork shall be lifted to his mouth, "via anti-gravity tractor beam", or "by giving hand signals to a flock of highly-trained carrier pigeons".

Whether or not they succeed in actually gettign a fork to one's mouth, and whatever their corrollary consequences, the genesis of these actions is inherently unpredictable, as they are drawn from a set of choices which, if not actually infinite in number, is so near infinite as to be meaningfully indistinguishable.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

But that's not how you think. You don't say to yourself, "I think I'll move my hand 2.48 inches ... no, make that 2.49 inches." What you actually think is, "I think I'll pick up my fork," and your arm moves whatever distance is necessary to do that.

Except that exactly how you pick up your fork has innumerable variations: right or left hand? Thumb and forefinger or ring and middle finger? Pinky up or pinky down? Handle end or prong end? Salad fork or ass-scratching fork? and so forth. What makes humankind particularly unpredictable, though, is that rare individual who says, in response to the query of exactly how the fork shall be lifted to his mouth, "via anti-gravity tractor beam", or "by giving hand signals to a flock of highly-trained carrier pigeons".

Whether or not they succeed in actually gettign a fork to one's mouth, and whatever their corrollary consequences, the genesis of these actions is inherently unpredictable, as they are drawn from a set of choices which, if not actually infinite in number, is so near infinite as to be meaningfully indistinguishable.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

But that's not how you think. You don't say to yourself, "I think I'll move my hand 2.48 inches ... no, make that 2.49 inches." What you actually think is, "I think I'll pick up my fork," and your arm moves whatever distance is necessary to do that.

Except that exactly how you pick up your fork has innumerable variations: right or left hand? Thumb and forefinger or ring and middle finger? Pinky up or pinky down? Handle end or prong end? Salad fork or ass-scratching fork? and so forth. What makes humankind particularly unpredictable, though, is that rare individual who says, in response to the query of exactly how the fork shall be lifted to his mouth, "via anti-gravity tractor beam", or "by giving hand signals to a flock of highly-trained carrier pigeons".

Whether or not they succeed in actually gettign a fork to one's mouth, and whatever their corrollary consequences, the genesis of these actions is inherently unpredictable, as they are drawn from a set of choices which, if not actually infinite in number, is so near infinite as to be meaningfully indistinguishable.

I wasn't telling you how we think, but how computers think using raw force. Just think of every possibility that a human might do. Yes, computers can design things with set perameters, but the light bulb was not thought up of from set perameters. Inventions are the result of a need. Someone wasn't just sitting around with all the materials that could make a lightbulb and wonder what they could make with it. If computers self awareness is just "I am self" I struggle to believe they can recognize a need.

I wasn't telling you how we think, but how computers think using raw force. Just think of every possibility that a human might do. Yes, computers can design things with set perameters, but the light bulb was not thought up of from set perameters. Inventions are the result of a need. Someone wasn't just sitting around with all the materials that could make a lightbulb and wonder what they could make with it. If computers self awareness is just "I am self" I struggle to believe they can recognize a need.